How Ilhan Omar is setting back legitimate debate of Israeli policies

By Daniel Kurtzer

Mar 05, 2019 | 5:40 PM

Not helping (SAUL LOEB / AFP/Getty Images)

There is an unfortunate and ironic outcome from Rep. Ilhan Omar’s recent tweets and public statements. Surely unintentionally, she appears to have stifled, rather than opened up, discussion on Israeli government policies.

In recent years, we have seen the beginning of a healthy public debate on how to square the security and well-being of a long‑time friend and ally with that friend and ally’s continued occupation of land captured 50 years ago. This debate has been sharp and pointed, but it was a legitimate debate. Omar’s ill‑considered language is undermining even the ability to conduct that debate. She is doing her policy objectives no favors, and ought to stop.

Advertisement

Only a few weeks into her congressional tenure, Omar got into hot water in mid‑February by tweeting that American support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins, baby.” Last week, she went from the frying pan into the fire, saying that she wanted to “talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Let’s set aside just how foolish it is for a Muslim-American politician — herself a member of a minority religion that is regularly attacked for supposed lack of loyalty to the United States — to say these things. Democrats and Republicans alike have responded with a torrent of criticism for Omar’s echoing these anti-Semitic tropes. Omar denies she is anti-Semitic, but those protestations have largely fallen short, and members of her own party are preparing a resolution that can only be understood as critical of her comments.

Only Omar knows what is in her own heart. But the rest of us hear loud and clear what she says. Omar may truly believe that her comments are legitimate forms of opposition to Israeli policy. But if that is the case, she is naïve, and as an elected official, she has a duty to acquire a basic understanding of the likely inferences drawn from the things she says. Not just because she has a responsibility to avoid racism and bigotry. Referencing old, vile stereotypes about money or disloyalty does a serious injustice to the very issues that Omar believes she is protesting.

One of the thorniest issues in the public square regarding Israel and Palestinians is the question of whether the boycott, sanctions and divestment movement (BDS) is a legitimate expression of opposition to Israeli government policy, or whether it crosses the line into bigotry by singling out Israel and in effect questioning Israel’s legitimacy altogether. Some people (including Omar) think BDS is clearly fair game. Others think it is clearly antisemitic and unacceptable. And still others, including myself, are struggling. We oppose a BDS movement that makes no distinction between Israel and Israeli policy in the occupied territories — we are deeply supportive of Israel and Israeli security, but also opposed to some Israeli government policies on both legal and humanitarian grounds.

As the debate over BDS has raged, it has created a dilemma of its own, namely, what kinds of opposition to Israeli policy may be prohibited altogether by U.S. and Israeli law. In Israel, there have been several high profile cases barring persons the Israeli government claims to be BDS activists from entering the country at all. Some (presumably including Omar) see that as an outrageous effort to limit free speech in a democracy. Others equally forcefully defend the right of any sovereign to determine who can and cannot enter its borders.

In the United States, several states have passed laws limiting BDS supporters from public contracts or employment. Legal challenges to those laws are moving through the courts. In the meantime, a Senate bill affirmatively protecting such laws is effectively dead in the House, the future of an alternative House bill is uncertain, and at a minimum, an anti-BDS resolution is likely in Congress. Supporters of these measures argue that Israel deserves protection from those who seek to delegitimize it. Opponents (including Omar) argue that it infringes on the right of free speech and effectively muzzles those who do not agree with Israeli policy.

In the heated atmosphere of this debate, Omar’s remarks and tweets have a chilling effect. They send those debating Israeli policy into opposite corners of the ring: “pro-Israel” and “anti-Israel.” Her attempts at explaining what she means have not helped, as they have only muddied the waters and left little space for those willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on the charge of antisemitism. But if she wants the debate on these issues to advance, and I suspect that she does, Omar does herself — and her constituents, her party, and the rest of us — a disservice in tweeting inflammatory and offensive memes and tropes.

Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, is professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.